Back
UTTARANCHAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President;
Mr. Surendra Kumar & Ms. Luxmi Singh, Members
SANJAY HASTIR—Appellant
versus
SHUBHAM SURGICAL CENTER AND NURSING HOME & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 08 of 2005—Decided on 17.3.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Yogesh Sethi, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4:Mr. Manoj Kohli, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 5:Mr. Niranjan Prakash, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable evidence and expert opinion to prove medical negligence. The court emphasized the importance of expert evidence in substantiating allegations of negligence.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Compensation - Sections 304 and 304A, I.P.C. - I (2004) CPJ 123=2004 (2) CPR 165, Smt. Vimlesh Dixit v. Dr. R.K. Singhal - III (2003) CPJ 178 (NC)=2004 NCJ 27 (NC), Mrs. O. Aisha Bi and Ors. v. Prof. J.R. Danial - III (2004) CPJ 20 (NC), Inderjeet Singh v. Dr. Jagdeep Singh - 2002 (1) CPR 391, Dr. Piyush Verma and Others v. Jabar Singh and Another - III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC), Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Others - I (2002) CPJ 395, Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib (Charitable) Hospital and Others v. D.K. Nayyar and Another - 2002 (2) CPR 138 (NC), Dr. Janak Kantimathi Nathan and Others v. Murlidhar Eknath Masane and Others - I (1999) CPJ 43 (NC), Prasanth S. Dhananka v. Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences and Others - IV (2004) CPJ 40 (SC)=(2005) SCCR 13, Smt. Savita Garg v. The Director, National Heart Institute
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint for compensation on the ground of medical negligence after the death of his father following an operation for gall bladder stone removal. The complaint alleged negligence by the doctors and sought compensation of Rs. 4,50,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant failed to prove any negligence or deficiency in service by the doctors. It emphasized the lack of expert evidence to substantiate the allegations of negligence and highlighted the importance of reliable evidence supported by expert opinion in proving medical negligence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the doctors were negligent in performing the operation and if there was any deficiency in their service. The court also considered the complainant's failure to provide expert evidence to support the allegations of negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reliable evidence and expert opinion to prove medical negligence. It cited several legal precedents to support the requirement for expert evidence in cases of medical negligence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and no compensation was awarded to the complainant. The court held that the complainant failed to prove any negligence or deficiency in service by the doctors.
Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 1.12.2004 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar whereby the complaint of the complainant for compensation on the ground of medical negligence of the opposite parties in doing the operation of the father of the complainant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed the complaint with the allegations on 17.8.2002 that his father Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir aged about 65 years was suffering with stone in the gall bladder. He consulted Dr. Ajay Aggarwal, opposite party No. 2 of Shubham Surgical Center and Nursing Home, opposite party No. 1 on 19.8.2000. It is said that there was examination on the said date. On examination it was revealed that the sugar and blood pressure is on the higher side. On 23.8.2000 Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir was admitted in the nursing home and he was operated upon by Dr. Ajay Aggarwal, opposite party No. 2. At that time opposite party No. 3, Dr. Anil Dixit and opposite party No. 4, Dr. Atul Joshi were also present. It is to be remembered that no negligence has been alleged against opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, nor any relief has been claimed in the relief clause against them. The entire allegation is against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It is further pleaded in the complaint that Dr. Ajay Aggarwal told that there is nothing dangerous. It is alleged that on 23.8.2000 the victim was taken in the operation theatre at 8.00 a.m. At 9.45 a.m. one compounder came out, took the scooter of the complainant and went to take some medicines from the market. On return the compounder informed that the victim is being stitched upon and in 15-20 minutes he shall come out. At 10.10 a.m. Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir came out on stature. He was feeling extreme pain. The compounder went to take extension board for fitting the monitor but extension board was not available, therefore, the compounder kept on standing with the monitor, which could not be properly cured. It is alleged that the complainant deposited the fee for operation. In para 8 of the complaint it is alleged that the father of the complainant was restless. He was asking for water. Even section pipe was taken out. Oxygen was called for. Several doctors were called but the patient died at 11.00 a.m. It is said that the operation was done negligently. Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir was a heart patient. No heart operators were kept, nor any heart specialist was called for. It is alleged in para 10 of the complaint that some nerve has been cut down by the negligence of the doctor or he has committed some great mistake. It is further pleaded that Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir died out of negligence of the doctors. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation.
3. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement and alleged that the criminal proceeding has been started against the opposite parties under Section 304, I.P.C., in which it shall be decided whether the respondents have been negligent or not. In this case complicated question of law and facts are involved, therefore, this complaint shall not lie. It was further said that this is not a consumer dispute. No consideration has been taken by the opposite parties from the complainant. It is further pleaded that the nursing home is insured. It is again pleaded that no negligence has been committed by the opposite parties. All precautions have been taken in the operation. There was no negligence on their behalf. The allegations are false and baseless. The respondents were duly qualified to meet with any situation and handled the patient in the best possible way. ECG, blood sugar fasting and PP, Hb, TLC, DLC, blood urea, BT CT and other investigations were advised, the reports of which came out to be within normal limits. It is further alleged that 100% oxygen was given. Vitals and other parameters were found within normal limits. All of a sudden the patient developed dyspnoea. All the do
